Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Martin Caton in the Chair]

Clauses 28 and 29ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Abolition of “Energywatch” and “Postwatch”

Susan Kramer: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in clause 30, page 17, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The Secretary of State may make an order by statutory instrument to abolish the Consumer Council for Postal Services, provided that—
(a) no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, and
(b) no such order shall be made before 2010.’.

Martin Caton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 13, in clause 30, page 17, line 25, leave out subsection (2).

Susan Kramer: For us, this is one of the most significant amendments that we have tabled in Committee. The effect, Mr. Canton— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, Mr. Caton—

Stephen Pound: Please, not Canton.

Susan Kramer: It is always dangerous when the hon. Member for Ealing, North is here.
The twofold effect of the amendment is to provide, first, that an affirmative vote of the House is needed for Postwatch to be merged into the new National Consumer Council and, second, that no such order can be made before 2010.
 The Minister will have gathered that my party is extremely concerned about the timing of the merger of Postwatch into the NCC. We do not doubt the long-term value of the merger, but we think that the NCC and its role are sufficiently important that the council must start well, function well and serve the long-term purpose in such a way as to be well regarded by consumers in this country. In other words, it should not get off on the wrong foot.
 We are also entering a crucial period for the work of the current Postwatch. As we said earlier our debates, and as others have acknowledged, we are facing the closure of probably 2,500 post offices under a compulsory programme. In addition, there will be voluntary closures—there always are. There is every reason to think that the pace of voluntary closure may tend to increase, rather than decrease, as uncertainty is added into the general picture. There is a general sense of a network in decline, rather than a network in revival.
In addition, Postwatch is taking on a second role, because Royal Mail has now informed Postcomm that it wishes to change the way that it prices to business. It is interested in a zonal system, which will have a huge impact on rural businesses, which might well face much higher prices for business post. Initially, the price differential would be small but, from a reading of the details from Royal Mail, it would increase significantly over time if the system were to go ahead.
 The same issues will face businesses in outer London, including—I may say, for the purposes of conflict of interest—my constituency. Consumers will be impacted upon, because, undoubtedly, business is likely to change how it communicates—certainly with businesses in rural or suburban areas, given the change in the pricing profile. Postwatch is now taking on the work of surveying business, to feed into the consultation on the issue, which will probably run until at least this November. We are looking at two absolutely massive pieces of work, which, frankly, do not overlap; they are completely different aspects of the mail service.
We were concerned earlier that the core structure of the NCC’s remit is not regionally based. The council has the ability to put in place regional committees, but that is not the core of its structure. However, that is the core of Postwatch. In a sense, that is the mechanism, through Postwatch, which will particularly focus on the closure of those 2,500 post offices and any additional voluntary closures. The Postwatch structure currently works regionally, and that is how staff are organised, how the information flow is managed and how authority spreads throughout the system.
 We are looking at those massive pieces of work at the same time as the proposed changeover. Unfortunately, I have spent a significant amount of my life in business organisations going through great change. From direct knowledge, I can assure the Committee that nobody ever overestimates the damage to morale that happens in a period of uncertainty and change. It is always underestimated. The impact will be devastating, even on people who are responsible and determined to carry out their job well and to function best—in this case, for this country’s consumers. The uncertainties are shared by families, friends and neighbours. The people affected must make decisions about whether they are going to move, and they do not really know whether they will have a job or quite what is entailed. There is no way to give adequate reassurance. We will be asking people not only to function in that particularly difficult environment, but to carry out those two major cases of work.
It is also evident from our discussions in prior phases of the Committee and today that much of the work that needs to be done to implement transition is still in its early days. How is a vulnerable postal customer identified? If someone calls in to complain about a letter, how do we know whether they are vulnerable if we know nothing about their income, their background or their history? All kinds of questions must be answered before the NCC can step in properly to fulfil its remit.
We are not opposed to the merger of Postwatch into the NCC, but it must be done with clarity and effectively. If it is rushed, that causes various problems. To rush it in the context of two crucial and critical pieces of work that will have a great impact on both consumers and businesses is asking for a disaster in the NCC’s early days and would fail the public. This is a crucial set of issues, and I urge the Government to think again, and 2010 would seem the ideal date to aim for. Let us make sure that everything is done and dusted, and done well, and that the public have been properly served before making this change. The NCC is a body to be there for the long term; it loses nothing by having a little patience at the start.

Mark Prisk: I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Caton.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park has highlighted many of the issues that we would like the Minister to address. I do not intend therefore to repeat them at length. The Opposition are concerned about the merger of Postwatch and the new council, both in terms of the principle and the timing. The hon. Lady mentioned the latter. While far from perfect, certainly in the view of the National Audit Office, Postwatch is very important in ensuring effective representation for all mail consumers.
Postal services are different from utilities such as gas and electricity, both in their nature and character, as the hon. Lady suggested. Sector-specific expertise needs to be carried over. The Minister alluded to that in an earlier debate. Therefore, what inquiries has he made to satisfy himself that such expertise will be maintained? What processes and sector-specific issues does he believe the new council will need to transfer? Is he satisfied that the timing of the merger will not cause consumer interests to be diminished? That is the heart of the concern, and it would be helpful if he clarified that issue.
Before I was elected to the House, I worked in the business world and it was clear to me that mergers distract organisations and their management from focusing on day-to-day issues. We have to be convinced that the Minister has taken all reasonable steps and has considered what the problems will be, to ensure the vital role of representing those consumers will not be lost or diminished in the coming months.

Jim Fitzpatrick: AmendmentNo. 13 would prevent the abolition of Postwatch under the Bill and would therefore deny consumers in the postal services sector the benefit of having a stronger, more coherent consumer advocate to represent their interests.
 Amendment No. 22 would require the Secretary of State to carry out the abolition of Postwatch by making an order, approved by a resolution of each House. Concerns were raised on Second Reading about the timing of the merger, which coincides with the post office network restructuring programme. Amendment No. 22 seeks to delay the abolition of Postwatch until at least 2010, by which time the restructuring programme should have been completed.
 One of the most fundamental objectives of the Bill is the creation of a cross-sectoral consumer advocacy body, which is stronger than the sum of its parts, to address the consumer issues that frequently exist across sectors of the economy. The new body must have the critical mass to engage effectively with the Government, regulators and industry sectors, on the basis of expert and informed analysis, and the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise from a number of sectors.
As Opposition Members have said, maintaining the existing sectoral expertise in the postal services sector is vital to the new body’s success and to the Government’s proposals for a sustainable post office network. A strong consumer advocate and the expertise that it will inherit will be important in a sector that has only recently been opened to competition.
 In recognition of the importance to consumers of post office restructuring, the new council will be given the specific function of investigating any matter relating to the number and location of public post offices, as we discussed under clause 16. That replicates the provisions in the Postal Services Act 2000 that apply to Postwatch. The new council will therefore continue the role of Postwatch in representing the views of consumers in the post office restructuring programme, thus offering consumers a strong voice on that issue and on similar matters that arise in other sectors.
 Delaying the inclusion of Postwatch in the new arrangements for consumer advocacy would not only delay the benefits to consumers of having a strong voice to represent them, but prolong the period of uncertainty for existing staff and consumers and increase the likelihood of staff departures and retention problems.
 As I mentioned this morning, we envisage that the new arrangements will be in place within a year of the Bill’s receiving Royal Assent. Postwatch is fully engaged in early planning for the implementation of the new arrangements. Two groups have been set up, tasked with ensuring that the consumer interest continues to be effectively represented during the transition to the new arrangements and when the new arrangements are in place.
 For example, work undertaken by the groups so far includes the preparation of a timetable setting out key milestones on a critical path to implementation; the mapping of existing work, resources and best practice to be transferred to the new council, as well as additional work that the new council could usefully undertake, such as greater use of web-based consumer advocacy; the identification of tasks required to close down Energywatch, Postwatch and the NCC; and early planning to extend the consumer direct service to the energy and postal services sectors. That service already provides help and advice to consumers with inquiries and simple complaints relating to other sectors. Its extension to consumers in the energy and postal services sector will provide them with a first port of call for help, whatever sector their inquiry or compliant relates to.
 As hon. Members would expect, we are taking great care to ensure that the work being undertaken by Postwatch on post office network restructuring will not be disrupted during the transition period. Additional staff and other resources are being allocated to Postwatch to assist with the programme, and those resources will be carried forward into the new arrangements for the duration of that work.

Mark Prisk: I am interested in the additional resources. By whom are they being provided and who is paying?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Postwatch is working up what it believes to be the appropriate number of additional staff, and discussions are going on with the shareholder executive. No financial problems have been flagged up, so as far as I am aware, the budget is covering the resources that are required.

Susan Kramer: Is the Minister referring to the temporary staff that Postwatch always takes on to deal with a project on this scale, or is he suggesting that an additional resource is being put in, because he is trying to manage the transition on top of that? I had understood that the standard number of staff associated with a project on this scale would be involved.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady is correct in her assumption that the additional staff are those who will have to deal with the additional work load that will need to be undertaken when Post Office Ltd publishes its proposals in the way that we have described and has to engage with local communities, parliamentarians and so on. Arrangements are in hand for them. Discussions are taking place to identify what is required to make the transition as smooth as possible.
I do not underestimate the challenge, as the hon. Lady depicts it, that the new NCC will face in ensuring that the transition is as seamless as possible. Discussions and negotiations are taking place to ensure that the appropriate arrangements are in place. The need for resources, such as staff, will have to be taken into account. In the same way, full weight is being given to the need to provide certainty to Postwatch and the other consumer bodies about the location of the new council’s headquarters.
We are considering the issue with the benefit of input from each of the consumer bodies. The decision about where the new council will be located will take into account such matters as the cost of the existing property portfolio and concerns about the retention of staff and therefore the expertise of the sector—issues raised by the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Hertford and Stortford.
We recognise the importance that Postwatch places on the work of its regional committees and the role that they will play in the assessment of the post office network restructuring programme. The Bill makes specific provisions to enable the new council to establish regional committees where it considers that they will be beneficial to consumers, as we have already discussed. That is a matter for the new council to determine. However, as I have said, we are working with the existing consumer bodies to plan for the implementation of the new arrangements.
 The role of Postwatch in handling complaints by consumers is self-evidently important. The new arrangements for the postal services sector as a whole include the introduction of redress schemes, to ensure the resolution of complaints and to provide compensation or other forms of redress where they are warranted. The redress mechanism must be independent from both parties involved in a complaint, to ensure that the decisions reached on each case are fair and impartial. That is why Postwatch does not have the statutory functions to ensure complaint resolution, rather than simply complaint handling. However, the redress schemes will ensure that consumers receive resolution of each complaint, as the decisions made by the redress schemes will be binding on suppliers in the postal services sector.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park raises an important point about the identification of vulnerable consumers. She raised it this morning, too. Obviously, we recognise the need to ensure that vulnerable consumers can be identified, and, in any case, that process goes on at present.
 I can understand why the hon. Lady discussed Postwatch and Energywatch. They deal with all complaints, and therefore evidence of a customer’s vulnerability can emerge during their exchanges with the consumer. We are currently working with consumer bodies, businesses and established redress schemes on all aspects of addressing complaints in practice, including the identification of vulnerable consumers. However, the new council will need to ensure that there are strong and effective communications with Consumer Direct redress schemes and electricity, gas and postal services companies. Some companies already have specialist teams to help vulnerable consumers. We need to capture that expertise and provide a system of communications to ensure that, wherever vulnerability is identified, the right sort of help can be provided.
 We all know that consumers will contact anyone in the first instance—that is entirely understandable—and they often contact us as Members of Parliament, or write directly to Ministers. What we need to do and what we will do is to bring to bear a new, coherent and cohesive approach to dealing with consumer complaints generally and dealing with vulnerable consumers in particular. As I mentioned to the hon. Lady, that work is ongoing.
We believe that these amendments do not best serve the interests of consumers. We understand exactly why they have been proposed, and we recognise that there is a genuine concern. However, we are confident in the arrangements that we are making, and we therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Susan Kramer: I appreciate the answer that the Minister has given, and he was very good in expanding beyond the narrowness of some of the issues that I raised; I appreciate that. However, one of his arguments was that to delay the merger—I think that it is actually the takeover by NCC of Postwatch and that it is clearly not a merger—would deny mail users the advantages of a redress scheme. I point out to him that, for a lost letter, the typical redress is one book of 12 first-class stamps; that is hardly what one would call a massive financial benefit. The value of following up complaints in the mail service is to get improvements for the future. So the redress scheme, although it will always be valuable and I would always like one to be in place, is not the most urgent element when dealing with the post.
The Minister was very kind in addressing the issue of vulnerability. I raise that matter at this point—it will be raised again at other points—to demonstrate how early in the process we are, because it is exceedingly difficult to find a way to identify vulnerable users. I am talking about a clause affecting the Post Office. However, as I said before, when someone calls up and complains about a lost letter, what is done? There is not some sort of financial history, as there might be if they were being provided with electricity and they have an account. What do we do? Do we say, “Are you recently bereaved and feeling great grief, so you cannot deal with this? Is your IQ rather low? Have you had a recent bout of depression?” How does one identify a vulnerable user in that case? Perhaps there is a way to do it, but we certainly have not arrived at it.
We are talking about merging the organisations. Anybody who raises a complaint will lose the benefit of Postwatch, which followed through any complaint, and complaints will be narrowed down to the specified group. If we were doing only the merger, I would understand that the Minister needed to progress as fast as possible, but it is being done in the context of two major pieces of work. One of them tends to be missed; I heard no reference to the enormous piece of work that must be done on zonal pricing. It deals primarily with the business sector and with consumers who will be impacted, in addition to all the closures.
I appreciate that the Minister intends for all the work to succeed; I am objecting not for the purpose of prevarication, but because I want the process to be successful, both for consumers and for the NCC. I must therefore press the amendment to a Division.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 31

Designation of the Consumer Council for Water for abolition

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 31, page 18, line 15, at end add—
‘(5) No order under subsection (1) above is to be madebefore 2011.’.
This is quite an important clause, as it designates the Consumer Council for Water for abolition. The amendment would insert a new subsection, which says that that should not take place before 2011. The CCW was created recently, at quite considerable expense. I understand that it cost in the region of £1 million. I question whether abolishing it before it has even reached the crawling stage, let alone infancy, is the wisest course of action. The council needs time to establish itself if it is to transfer its skills, ability and expertise, and it should not just be killed at birth.
 My noble Friend, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer, gave a very full explanation of why the Liberal Democrats believe that 2011 should be the earliest date. She referred to the time line of various framework water directives and pricing rounds, and to the draft river basin management plans, which are to be published for public consultation in December 2008. The process will run until 2009, after which the revised plans will be published and there will be a formal response. To interfere with that and with the work of the CCW before then would be unfortunate and disruptive.
The pricing round that my noble Friend mentioned relates to 2009. In January 2010, companies will decide whether they want to appeal to the Competition Commission on the price limits that will have been set for them in 2009. The pricing round will have almost but not quite finished. Until 2009, the CCW’s input into that round will be very important indeed.
The CCW has undertaken work on the problems that have been experienced by all of us recently in relation to the lack of water, hosepipe bans and the difficulty of ensuring that people are treated fairly with regard to water matters. That work indicates that it would be better to allow the CCW to get off the ground.
The Government still need to make a case for incorporating the CCW into the NCC. There will be a hiatus in the way matters progress. Important plans and important pricing considerations will come to fruition by 2011, with a hiatus before the following round, so we believe that 2011 is the right date for any amalgamation of the CCW into the NCC.

Mark Prisk: I suspect that the amendment will encourage us to drift beyond its terms into the substance of the clause. We discussed some of the issues on Second Reading, and the argument of the hon. Member for Solihull has considerable merit. As I believe most people would recognise, the CCW is in a slightly different situation from the bodies that deal with gas and electricity. It has been around only since 2005, whereas the other bodies have existed for five or so years. There are also differences in the markets in which they operate: water supply is perhaps more naturally the subject of a monopoly than postal services, as we have heard in debates.
Given the price review that is due in 2009, there will clearly be a problem with any merger that happens at that time. I seek a coherent plan either to bring forward the price review or to postpone the merger—we can do one or the other. The Minister indicated on Second Reading that the Government were willing to consider the form of the change. In fact, it might not have been the Minister himself; it may have been his colleague. I am not saying that they are interchangeable—they each have their own merits.

Jim Fitzpatrick: There is a pay grade difference, too.

Mark Prisk: Indeed, and I feel that acutely myself.
 We want clarity about whether the Government can demonstrate that there is a clear path that makes sense and will be appropriate administratively and for consumers in the marketplace. I am not personally wedded to the date of 2011, and I got the impression that neither necessarily was the hon. Member for Solihull. It is important to get the issues sorted out, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Susan Kramer: I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way. I was present during the Second Reading debate and thought that I heard something rather different. I thought that we heard from the Secretary of State that he proposed to accelerate the merger, so that it would take place ahead of the price review and the implementation of the directive. I thought that I heard from Conservative Front Benchers some warm words suggesting that that might appeal to them as a strategy. That is rather different from accelerating the price review. It is obviously impossible to accelerate the EU directive timetable. I wonder whether my interpretation was right. If not, I am somewhat befuddled about the position of either of the other parties.

Mark Prisk: That was a fascinating intervention, not least given the Minister’s expression. He clearly does not recognise that interpretation of the debate that we all attended either.
Coherence is needed between the two events—the price review and the change in the role of the CCW. We are reasonably open to suggestions on how that should be done, but it is unclear in the Bill how the Government intend to square the circle. We need to hear that from the Minister.

Ben Wallace: I wish to ask the Minister for one point of clarification on subsection (4). As a former member of a devolved Parliament, I keep an eye on such matters from time to time, to the boredom of most people. The subsection states:
“An order under this section may only be made with the consent of the Welsh Ministers.”
I understand the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and this place, which is sovereign, but it is curious that the subsection says not that the Government must consult Welsh Ministers but that they must have their consent.
If the Welsh Assembly chooses different parties in the election at the end of the month but the Government decide to proceed with the abolition of the council, we could be almost held hostage. Welsh Ministers could say, “We don’t give you the consent. We just like it the way it is, thank you very much.” We might find ourselves in a long-winded process if we decided to go ahead with the abolition, which we could eventually achieve. I should like the Minister to clarify why we are tied into consent, rather than consultation or any other option.

Jim Fitzpatrick: May I say to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that when I referred to pay grades, I was not making reference to remuneration and the loss of it on his side or the little of it on mine? It was said in the context of decision-making progress way above my pay grade. That was why I did not recall making any such statement, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested. I do not believe that I would have the authority to make a statement about such changes, but my right hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Secretary of State could certainly have done so.
On the timing of the consultation on the inclusion of the CCW, I am advised that my right hon. Friend Minister of State said that he was in contact with it about the potential for bringing forward the consultation on its inclusion from 2008 if that would be helpful. That is the essence of the issue of timing.
The effect of the amendment would be to prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to designate the CCW for abolition before 2011. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State must consult the CCW, the new council and other persons as appropriate before making an order designating the CCW for abolition and subsequently transferring its functions to the new council. Any order to include the water sector within the new arrangements will therefore be made only after public consultation. I hope that that gives the hon. Ladies some confidence about the proposal.
 Assuming that the results of the consultation suggest that there are significant benefits to consumers from incorporating the water sector in the new arrangements, any delay by the Secretary of State in making the order merely delays extending those benefits to water consumers—the same consumers as those in the energy and postal services sectors. If the new arrangements are shown to benefit consumers in the water sector, we ask why we would wish to delay. Any delay would also prolong the period of uncertainty for existing staff and consumers and increase the likelihood of staff retention problems, because, as I said in respect of the other bodies, staff departures would probably increase.
 Delaying the incorporation of the CCW will delay the benefits to consumers of having a stronger voice to represent them and delay the extension of redress schemes to the water sector to ensure that consumers benefit from complaint resolution rather than simply complaint handling. Only independent redress schemes, which can award redress such as an explanation, apology or compensation as appropriate and whose decisions are binding on regulated providers, can offer customers the certainty of resolution.
 We recognise that there will always be significant events in any market sector, such as the price review in the water sector in 2009, or ongoing work on the water framework directive and the river basin management plans that require the consumer interest to be represented effectively, but that is exactly what the new council will be designed to do. It will be an even stronger voice for consumers across all sectors, with the critical mass to engage effectively with the Government, regulators and industry sectors, and with the benefit of being able to draw on experience and expertise from a number of sectors.
 Price reviews are not peculiar to the water sector. Europe now has an influence over most sectors of our economy and the environment has never had a higher place on the agenda. These issues should not be considered in isolation, sector by sector. Experience and expertise can be taken from one sector and applied to others, resulting in a more beneficial outcome for consumers.
We accept the need to retain a degree of sector expertise, which is an integral part of our reforms. The new council will be in an ideal position to benefit from the sectoral expertise of the existing consumer bodies and from the lessons learned in each sector, and to apply best practice across the sectors.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked whether the Welsh Assembly Government could veto the proposals. That is not our assessment; we believe that, during consultation, we could identify and solve any problem that arises as a result of representations.

Ben Wallace: I am grateful to the Minister for his optimism, but the proposal is specific. Consent is needed; it is not about representation. It states that without consent the CCW cannot be abolished. If Welsh Ministers choose not to give their consent, it cannot be abolished.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is our assessment that we do not anticipate an unreasonable reaction from the Welsh Assembly Government. It is accurate to say that it has to consent to the issue, but on the basis of the consultations that will take place next year on the problems that may be identified and the ability to resolve them, we do not think that the veto would apply to this issue.

Mark Prisk: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has made an excellent point and I offer an olive branch. If the Minister wishes to reflect on the issue and feels that he may need to make an adjustment, we would be willing to consider such a proposal sensibly, because it is important to strike a balance on the matter.
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that an error may have been made, although I appreciate that the Minister has to deal with it as he finds it. If he finds that the language so ably spotted by my hon. Friend would be a potential prohibition or restriction, we would be willing to consider an amendment to it. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in making that offer and I am happy to reassure him that I will return to it later in the passage of the Bill.

Stephen Pound: Just for clarity, could my hon. Friend define “Welsh Ministers”? I read that as meaning the Secretary of State for Wales, who would by and large tend to support the Government—well, usually anyway. Do the words in the Bill refer to Ministers of the Assembly in Cardiff or to the Secretary of State for Wales in this place?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My understanding is that the Bill refers to the Welsh Assembly Government, not the Secretary of State, in this regard. The offer from Opposition Members is generous. If I may, I shall take it up and return to the issue later in the passage of the Bill.

Lorely Burt: I am delighted that the Minister has such confidence in the consultation system and believes that all will be resolved in a way that ensures that this fledgling, which has hardly managed to get off the ground yet, will be able to deal with the turmoil of the price reviews and the other matters to which I have referred. I am still quite concerned, but perhaps now is not the most appropriate time to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Transfer orders and abolition orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: I notice that a similar problem to that in clause 31(4) could arise with subsection (5) of this clause. If I may, I shall repeat the point about clause 31. If there is a problem, the House should deal with it in a responsible and balanced way. If the Minister felt that he wanted to amend the provision at a later stage, perhaps on Report, I would certainly be prepared on my party’s behalf to listen to him with care.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I will be happy to respond to that point later in the course of proceedings on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Extension of the Council’s functions: Great Britain

Mark Prisk: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 37, page 22, line 3, at end insert
‘, including companies and industry experts who would be affected by such an order’.
 This probing amendment relates to subsection (3)(c). Its purpose is to ensure that the Secretary of State consults other stakeholders when extending the NCC’s functions. Given that the NCC will, under clause 21, have the power to establish business connections and therefore receive support from business and industry, it is important that those companies should be consulted if the functions of the council change. The purpose of the amendment is to seek the Minister’s view and to discover exactly how the Government intend to proceed.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic generosity, which is so typical of his noble spirit, in allowing me to intervene yet again. How would he define “industry experts”? Karl Marx was an expert on industry, and if he were alive, I doubt whether he would want to be consulted—or perhaps he would. What is an industry expert? Surely, either we are all industry experts, or there is a specific category of people who belong to the national federation of industrial experts.

Mark Prisk: The national federation of industrial experts would be a fascinating body. What a gathering it would be and what a glitterati of business expertise would join.
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the language must be clear. This is a probing amendment, but my interpretation is that industry experts would be experts in their industry, and would principally be trade and representative bodies. Their expertise might be sector specific, but it might not. The aim is to ensure that, as principal players in the field, they should be consulted appropriately.

Susan Kramer: I want to make one short comment, which was made earlier. The NCC’s primary role is to represent consumers. It is obviously appropriate to consult with industry when it might be brought under the umbrella, and there are occasions when industry is a consumer. Will the Minister reinforce the perspective of the NCC, which will not primarily be open to lobbying by business? It will primarily face the consumer’s lobby.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall respond to the hon. Lady’s point. We had a useful discussion on Tuesday about the definition of “consumer” and we agreed that businesses, particularly small businesses, are consumers in many respects, so there is a role for the NCC to represent business in a number of ways. That is not what the amendment is about; it is about consumer entitlement. None the less, I hope that I have clarified the hon. Lady’s point.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford for tabling the amendment, but I am not saying that we will accept it—one is probably enough today. There was a good debate on this point in the other place, but perhaps this is an opportunity for further clarification.
Clause 37 will permit the Secretary of State, by order, to confer on the new council any other function if he
“considers that it in the interests of consumers generally, or consumers of a particular description, to do so.”
The clause provides two key conditions for the use of that power. First, the functions envisaged must relate directly to an existing or former function of the council. Secondly, before making an order under the clause, the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult the council, Welsh Ministers in cases that might affect Wales and the functions exercisable by Welsh Ministers, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
The amendment to the last category would add
“including companies and industry experts who would be affected by such an order”.
Any consultation undertaken under the clause would be public consultation. As is our established practice, any consultation should try to reach all those who may have an interest in the subject, together with all those who may have a valuable contribution to make if their interest can be sparked. It follows that it is part of good consultation practice to seek to reach all those potential consultees who are affected by the proposals and who may have a contribution to make.
The range of stakeholders consulted will depend very much on the nature of what is proposed and on those who may be affected by it. However, it stands to reason that if businesses would be affected by the proposed new functions, it would be right, proper and necessary for the Secretary of State to consult businesses and trade associations as appropriate. In addition, as the consultation would be public, it would certainly be open to anyone, including companies and industry experts affected by any proposed extension of functions, to contribute their views.
 I believe that the existing provision makes sensible and adequate provision for consulting a range of appropriate persons, and for those reasons and my additional clarification, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why we do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

Mark Prisk: Just for a giddy moment, I thought from the Minister’s opening remarks that we were going to get two crumbs from the table; but sadly, it is not to be. Nevertheless, his remarks that it would be right, proper and necessary for the organisations to which I refer, including industrial experts of all character, to be consulted are encouraging. On that basis and having heard that and got it on the record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Steve McCabe.]

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o’clock till Tuesday 24 April at half-past Ten o’clock.